E-mail
Print
Working class needs its own party asap
Convention protests cause for optimism
By Nathan Johnson
Our political system is outdated and has not kept up a pace with the working class’ growing intellect.
The Republican National Convention was met with the largest protest since the 1968 Democratic Convention, in which 589 people were arrested. After the first two days, some 300 protesters had been arrested in St. Paul, out of an estimated 10,000 protesters.
The main issue inciting such large numbers in this most recent convention is opposition to the Iraq occupation, proving McCain wrong, who stated in an interview, “I don’t think Americans are concerned if we’re there [Iraq- a sovereign nation] for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years.”
Police performed several “preemptive” raids on activists, which turned out to be frame-ups. Democracy Now! reports that police would find “common household item[s],” consider them “edged weapon[s],” and thereby detain activists. Journalists were especially targeted.
4,000 protesters also marched at the Democratic Convention, led by Iraq Veterans Against the War, who have no illusions that Democrats have any less blood on their hands than Republicans. This heightening level of protesting corresponds to growing discontent with the “business as usual” policies of the two parties and their systems.
According to a 2006 survey taken by Princeton University, 53 percent of Americans want a new major political party. Over half the country feels poorly represented (or deliberately misrepresented) by the two elitist parties. Congress’ approval rating is currently at an all-time low in polling history at a pitiful 18 percent.
These figures indicate that our political system is outdated and has not kept up a pace with the working class’ growing intellect, which continues to develop tremendously with every passing generation. Gone are the days when bureaucratic politicians can trick and control the working class even to the point of supporting and fighting openly imperialist wars, as was the case in the Philippine War and WWI. Demagoguery of the Cold War variety no longer fools the working class, and in a matter of years terrorism fear mongering will also be ineffectual.
When you think of the working class in 1950s America, you think of stay-at-home mothers, children wearing tucked-in shirts, everybody smiling in front of the TV – in short, the classic “Leave it to Beaver” portrayal. There were few indications that the working class and youth of the 50s were set to explode in the following decade and protest like never before. The working class and youth of today aren’t nearly as whipped as in the 50s, so we can expect the next social eruption to be even more massive than in the 60s and 70s. Hopefully the mass demonstrations at the RNC, marches against the occupation of Iraq, and protesting for fair immigration reforms are just the tip of the iceberg.
The historic, massive World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999 indicated a more conscious working class exists in America than was formerly reckoned. Subsequent popular protests were delayed in the wake of 9/11, when the natural reaction of the masses was a surge in nationalism. However, the government’s response to 9/11, including illegal wiretapping and occupying Iraq, has ultimately provoked the greatest popular discontent since the Vietnam War.
The only real solution to America’s political dilemma is to build a working class party. The working class needs a party to provide continuity and win political power. While Democrats and Republicans love to sing their praises about how they stand for the working class, it’s clear they are lying through their teeth. If the two parties represent the working class, how come all three branches of government are overwhelmingly crammed with millionaires? How come both parties accept hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations, and in turn grant them favors?
The two parties are only representing the top 1 percent of Americans, the wealthiest of the wealthiest owners of capital. Only the working class, the backbone of society, is capable of challenging this bureaucratic sham of democracy.
The energy of steam can be used to power a train, but if the steam isn’t channeled, it escapes and the train doesn’t go anywhere. In the same way, the protesting and upheaval of the 60s and 70s dissipated because it was not channeled appropriately. By the 80s, social protest had been degraded to purely commercialized angst in fashion and music which, needless to say, accomplished nothing substantial. We must learn from the mistakes of the 60s and 70s- the largest of which was failing to build a working class party.
> Comments
HK on Sep 08, 2008 at 01:28 PM:
"While Democrats and Republicans love to sing their praises about how they stand for the working class, it’s clear they are lying through their teeth. If the two parties represent the working class,"
Why does everything have to be about the working class? Why do things have to be about class at all?
"how come all three branches of government are overwhelmingly crammed with millionaires?"
Because usually the most successful people are rich.
Why does everything have to be about the working class?
"How come both parties accept hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations, and in turn grant them favors?"
It's their money. Don't they have the right to do what they want with it?
Nathan Johnson on Sep 08, 2008 at 04:17 PM:
1) When practically all economic power is concentrated in the hands of less than 1 percent of the population, democracy is severely compromised. As Einstein wrote, "The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population." http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
2) Most millionaires get their money through inheritance or through exploiting the working class. No names immediately come to mind when I try to think of people who became millionaires working minimum wage. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor- the arguement that rich people worked for their money becomes less and less serious with every passing year and business cycle.
3) In a class society, the working class alone can fight for itself. The working class fought for and won the 8 hour workday- many workers died in the struggle. The capitalists didn't give up exploiting workers upwards of 12 or 16 hours a day of their own volition because it hurt their profit margins. Because the material and social interests of the working and ruling classes are 180 degrees apart, it is necessary for the working class to form its own party and fight for its own advancement.
Nathan Johnson on Sep 08, 2008 at 04:18 PM:
By the end of the RNC, some 800 people were arrested, a new record. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/5/nearly400arrestedon_lastday
Greg on Sep 09, 2008 at 01:26 PM:
It seems to me that the result of a workers party becomes a governement run by members of a workers party. If government is run by members of a workers party then one can assume the policies of a workers party would be made into law. And what would those laws look like?
I would have to assume you are advocating for workers' rights, unions, tax breaks for the working class, standardized wages, etc...
I hope you realize how leftist of an idea this really is. Its a slipery slope when you start dictating rules to the free market forces. I'd reconsider my opinion after thinking about German history if I were you.
Nathan Johnson on Sep 09, 2008 at 03:24 PM:
I assume by German history you are referring to the Nazis. The Nazis were fascists, and fascism is the most extreme form of a capitalist dictatorship. The people pulling the strings in the Nazi party were definately not working class, but belonged to the business/military elite.
In fact, the people who would later become the Nazis were responsible for crushing the failed German revolution of 1919-1922, wherein the leadership of the working class, including Rosa Luxemburg, was killed. Once the resistance of the workers was broken, the ground was cleared for fascism. History would have progressed much differently, (and needless to say) more positively had the working class been successful in their revolution, instead of losing to the fascists, who are the extreme right-wing.
The same can be said for the failed Spanish revolution in the '30's, and Franco's fascist dictatorship that followed. The current Socialist prime minister of Spain, and the Socialist party as a whole, is thoroughly democratic.
Greg on Sep 09, 2008 at 03:56 PM:
Now that you've proven how smart you are to everyone reading this message board, maybe you can address the main issue being presented in responce to the article. The fact that labor party ideas are in direct contrast to free market forces.
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:00 PM:
"The same can be said for the failed Spanish revolution in the '30's, and Franco's fascist dictatorship that followed. The current Socialist prime minister of Spain, and the Socialist party as a whole, is thoroughly democratic."
I'm not sure Franco would be categorized as a fascist. I took a political science class last year and they described people like him more under the category "authoritarian." Authoritarians regimes are ones in which individuals are forced to take heavy-handed measures to maintain order and the pre-existing law so as to prevent the rise of complete anarchy or transitions to totalitarian (closer to fascism) regimes where a lot more rights are taken away. (look up the Kirkpatrick doctrine) In Franco's case he may have appeared more dictatorial but that is because he presided over the Spainish Civil War. If you look at our own history Lincoln used measures that would be considered much more authoritarian to resolve our own Civil War.
As for Franco's actual policies many of them were actually good. He protected the free market, outlawed abortion, maintained traditional values, and civil order. Considering the unstable times during which he came to power his regime was probably good in the long run as it brought order to Spain and which later after his death allowed it to transition into a stable democracy.
Greg on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:04 PM:
And I guess, for the record, no here was even talking about fascism. You realize that the Nazi party was formed out of the National Socialist German's workers party?
But then again, no one's even debating that.
Johanan on Sep 09, 2008 at 04:26 PM:
"And I guess, for the record, no here was even talking about fascism. You realize that the Nazi party was formed out of the National Socialist German's workers party?"
The left keeps saying that Nazism is definitively a right-wing phenomenon. Upon investigation I have found there isn't much basis for such a claim. In reality what is called fascist often has components of both left and right wing ideologies blended together in a sort of strange hybrid that belongs in a category all of its own.
Greg on Sep 10, 2008 at 08:09 AM:
No one's debating the origin of Fascism or Nazism. The point of the original comment was to question the overall effectivness that a empowered workers' party would have in this country. Sure I used Nazi Germany as an example, maybe that's a good or bad analogy, but stay on point here.
Nathan Johnson on Sep 11, 2008 at 04:04 PM:
WWI was an openly imperialist war and WWII is only understandable in the context of the Great Depression. Laissez-faire capitalism--> monopoly capitalism--> imperialism--> fascism.
The the nations who provoked WWI and WWI were capitalist nations. Nazi Germany was capitalist. The Nazis included the word "socialist" in their name to dupe people, as I see it has duped you. Why would you take the Nazis at their word?
Fascism occurs when there is an extreme market failue, when the capitalist state comes to the rescue of the economy (or more accurately the capitalist class' profit-making abilitites) by killing off labors' resistance, escalating militarism, etc. The extreme right-wing nature of fascism is shown by who the fascists murder- the union leaders, social activists, and other leftists.
Only the working class can create a classless society, bottom line.
Nathan Johnson on Sep 12, 2008 at 10:17 AM:
To "stay on point": http://www.marx.org/archive/mandel/1986/09/planning.html
Seeking response from writer on Sep 13, 2008 at 03:02 PM:
Nathan,
While I admire your good faith in the working class, your article has one major error which voids most of the arguments being made here. You are confusing nineteenth century modernism with the realities of modern world.
Let's put this situation in context. The foundations of Marx's ideology rests upon class conflict and struggle. When analyzing history in the late nineteenth century Marx was innovative. He identified the major rifts in society and scared the pants out of the ruling aristocracies of Europe. However, there were several factors which Marx could never have anticipated. Things like mass credit ended up all but exterminated the working class as it had existed before the great depression.
The protests in the nineteen sixties and seventies were a result of a new, giant, and disenfranchised middle class youth. The young suburban successors to the old working class saw the intellectual death of socialism on their university campuses, where their protests were taking place. The largest protests, those in Washington D.C. reinforce my claim. They all traveled there, didn't they? Which means they had enough money and leisure to take a leave of absence from their jobs, something your revolutionary and militant working class would not have. You are probably coming up with several clever responses to these claims right now... well answer this,
Where was the working class rising up against the man in Gary, or Cleveland, or Pittsburgh? Milwaukee, the only city to have had four socialist mayors has zero tangible progress to show. The fact is, speaking of the working class as revolutionary in the second half of the twentieth century is absurd. The fact is they didn't (and don't) exist in a form relevant to your ends. White flight, a result of the booming economy and credit was the death of the urban working class, the only faction of that class, which had the ability to mobilize.
The protests of the WTO in 1999 also reinforce all my arguments. The blue collar workers protesting the WTO made absolutely no impact on globalism, which will continue to speed up the cycle of nations getting rich and poor in World History. Your classless society goes against human nature. No doubt people could accomplish a classless society. But it would only last about five minutes. Groups would begin taking over the means of production the second they had the chance. In finishing... The working class rising up and founding its own party in the modern day is about as likely as the Aristocracy doing the same.
Aaron Jeske on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM:
There is a good reason why every remaining communist/socialist country has a third-world economy. This whole business of central planning and working class failed, miserably. Do we need to revisit 1989?
How about you come to the 21st century already?
ya think? on Sep 14, 2008 at 11:26 PM:
I always get a grin out of "working class". As far as I am concerned anyone who has a fulltime job that they slave at day to day is "working class". The fact that some people may work harder, or take more risks should not be grounds for punishment, by putting them in a class all to themselves. People are people. They work. What's up with the class crap anyway?